You can view this post on the writer’s personal blog at Let Them Eat Cake.

Thursay I attended oral arguments at the 7th circuit Court of Appeals in the Allen Stevo ballot access case, Stevo v Keith.  Mr. Stevo tried to run as an independent conservative for the 10th Congressional District but failed to obtain the 10,000 petitioners, 5% of the district population, necessary for independent candidates, getting 7,200.  His attorney argued that, since the state of Illinois only requires 5,000 petitioners during redistricting years, the state must place Stevo’s name on the ballot, as he would have met the standard in other years, a standard that must be sufficiently restrictive.  He explained how other states keep their percentage requirement and simply aggregate old precinct data for the new districts, making their percentage requirement the only criterion in law and thus valid.  The State of Illinois, however, treats the census year as different and fails to simply compile new district data in favor of imposing the 5,000 petitioner requirement, adopting an unwarranted distinction for a change in standards.  Thus if Illinois has decreed 5,000 petitioners sufficient in essentially unchanged circumstances, they must accept Mr. Stevo’s 7,200 as sufficient to get on the ballot.  The defense’s attorney flailed about when the judges questioned him on the inconsistency of this policy before he finally settled on the rather weak argument that the change in districts itself changes voter turnout and so Illinois cannot use old precinct data.  The judges did not seem moved by this rather stretched application of the ceteris paribus fallacy.  Attempting to demolish Stevo’s case that the State of Illinois has established a necessarily sufficient minimum standard of petitioners, he noted that in some districts the 5,000 figure is actually larger than the normally mandated 5%.

What should we make of this case?

In a democratic society, ballot access measures should lean toward inclusion

If the preceding discussion of petitioner requirement levels seemed uninspired and pedantic to you, you probably realize that our democratic process should not set up too many arbitrary hurdles for inclusion in the political process.  We obviously need some to winnow out fringe figures with no support lest the ballot be too long, but if a candidate can prove to have a considerable following such fine lines should not stop them.  Rather than drawing the line for ballot inclusion based on a candidate’s potential for winning the election, we should recognize the important role political independents play in making the major two responsive to the demands of voters and draw the line for inclusion on the less demanding basis of a candidate’s ability to shape the content of the campaign and course of the election.

High ballot access hurdles help stigmatize third parties and independents

Voters who vote outside the two party system face charges that they have helped “Naderize” an election if their candidate loses.  High ballot access standards reduce the number of options for independent voters, thus increasing the probability that either the left or the right will field a candidate outside the two party system without the other side mustering enough support to do so.  If ballot access standards were lower, both sides of the political spectrum would have options outside of the party, making going outside the system on principle less politically disadvantageous since people on the other side are doing the same.

The Illinois General Assembly needs to repeal the redistricting year ballot access standard

The Stevo lawyer made it plainly clear that most states that compile old precinct data to figure out statistics for new districts do so without any special effort.  While the arcane law may help Stevo here, legal consistency would clarify this matter permanently.  Perhaps the best argument against it was offered not by the Stevo team but by the defense when they mentioned that in some districts actually represents an increase in the required number of petitioners.  Given the democratic premise of inclusive ballot access, a law that suddenly raises the petitioner requirement above 5% is clearly pernicious to both democratic participation and legal consistency.

I do not know why this makes me so upset but I saw this article about a US District Judge that plans to remain on the federal bench while under felony indictment. I know we are all innocent until proven guilty but I hope the Judge plans to take a leave of absence at least.

I understand that he would still get his paycheck but I do not understand why he should hear cases while under this black cloud of scandal.

Here is the article that I was reading.

HOUSTON — U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent has pleaded innocent to charges he fondled a former case manager and tried to force her into a sexual act.

Kent entered his plea Wednesday during his first court appearance after being indicted last week on federal sex crimes following a U.S. Justice Department investigation.

He is facing two counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of attempted aggravated sexual abuse.

If convicted of attempted aggravated sexual abuse, Kent could face up to life in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Each of the two counts of abusive sexual contact carries a sentence of up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Kent plans to stay on the bench while he awaits trial.

I ran across this article from my home state of North Dakota about an attorney wanting to run for one of the vacant positions on the North Dakota Supreme Court. Robert Bolinske, of Bismarck is running into a legal problem. North Dakota law does not allow him to file as an Independent to run for these Judgeships.

Judges run on “no - party” ballots meaning they have no party affiliation. The filing deadline for individuals desiring to run as an Independent for office in North Dakota is next week but because Judges run on a no-party ballot, Independents are no allowed on the ballot.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger has determined that the North Dakota Century Code is very clear on this issue. No-Party ballots mean candidates cannot file as Independents and anyone wishing to run for a no-party position needed to have filed to run in the 2008 Primary Election.

I know Secretary Jaeger to be an elected official of the highest integrity and I believe his interpretation of the North Dakota Century Code is accurate. However, this points out the problem with no-party elections in North Dakota and in other states. It prevents people from running from office.

I hope that the North Dakota State Legislature takes a look at this quirk in the law that allows Independents to file for office in party affiliated races in September but does not allow people to file as Independents in no-party races. It is hard enough to get people to run for school board, county commissioner, city commissioner and the many other no-party positions.

I have added a link to this Associated Press story. I hope this will spark some discussion on judicial elections across our country.

Attorney makes late bid to run for judgeships

By Dale Wetzel, the Associated Press, The Jamestown Sun

Published Monday, September 01, 2008

BISMARCK — An attorney plans to ask the North Dakota Supreme Court to help him run for state district judge or Supreme Court justice this fall, saying Secretary of State Al Jaeger will not accept his petitions to get on the ballot.

Robert V. Bolinske, of Bismarck, is circulating separate petitions to challenge Supreme Court Justice Daniel Crothers and South Central District Judge Gail Hagerty, both of whom are unopposed for election.

Bolinske said Saturday that he has not decided which race he will run. Independent candidates for statewide political offices must submit petition signatures from at least 300 voters by 5 p.m. Sept. 5 to qualify for the ballot.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

For Louisiana judges, crime does sometimes pay… at the pump. Louisiana’s Times-Picayune revealed today that Criminal District Court Judge Arthur Hunter has been reimbursed for more than $21,000 over the last 3 years to drive back and forth to work.

Although the funds are collected from court defendants’ fees and fines, one might ask himself if mileage reimbursement is really the best use of that cash. Louisiana voters will have the last word on that argument at the voting booth, as Hunter is up for re-election this November.

I was surprised to see the Cleveland Plain Dealer call for Judges to list their Party Affiliation on the ballot. I cannot agree more.

Voters should know as much informtion as apossible about any candidate running for office and which Political Party a candidate belongs to will give voters insight into that judicial candidate.

I hope more people in Ohio will join in supporting this idea to give voters more informtion about the judicial candidates on the ballot.

Here is a copy of the story.

Put Ohio judges’ party affiliations out there for all to see

Posted by The editors August 16, 2008 05:00AM

Categories: Editorial

A new campaign rule, proposed by Ohio’s Supreme Court, to let judicial candidates list their political party affiliation in ads would be a big plus for free speech, common sense and Ohio voters.

Since before the Civil War, Ohioans have elected virtually all of their judges. There’s no indication that the voters will ever surrender that right.

Ohioans nominate most judicial candidates in party primary elections: Democrats nominate other Democrats and Republicans nominate fellow Republicans. But, since before World War I, Ohio’s general election ballot has hidden judicial candidates’ party affiliations.

Party affiliation is a fair signal of how a judge is likely to rule in business-consumer lawsuits and personal-injury cases, for example.

Click here to read the full editorial.

In case you did not have a chance to read today’s Wall Street Journal Editorial on the American Bar Association’s Proposal to prevent voters from selecting judges I have posted it below.

The idea that the American people are unabale to particiapte in the selection of the their own judges is very scary!

Wall Street Journal

The ABA Plots a Judicial Coup

August 14, 2008; Page A12

Some bad ideas never seem to die, especially in the hands of a crafty attorney. That’s the story now playing out at the American Bar Association, which voted at its annual meeting this week to endorse a version of “merit selection” for federal judges. What we have here is the latest lawyer-led attempt to strip judicial selection from future Presidents.

According to the proposal, future federal judges would be selected not by an elected President, but with the aid of home-state Senators and a bipartisan commission that would provide a list of recommended nominees for judicial vacancies. The White House would then select a candidate from the preapproved list. The commission would be created by the two Senators from each state to offer up consensus choices for federal nominees.

The point of all this, says the ABA’s incoming President Thomas Wells, is to avoid “really rancorous debates” in the confirmation process and make sure vacancies aren’t left to languish indefinitely. The bar association has also enlisted former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to push for an expansion of merit selection at the state level as an alternative to judicial elections — which the bar loathes because voters can be so darn unpredictable.

We admire Mr. Wells’s high-mindedness. But surely he must have heard that merit selection merely takes the partisan politics out of the public eye and into backrooms stocked with political insiders. In states that have adopted the ostensibly nonpartisan system, it has given disproportionate influence to the state trial bars that control selection commissions and have steadily marched state courts to the left.

That may not be Mr. Wells’s intention, but it’s no accident that outfits like the George Soros-bankrolled Justice at Stake have lobbied for precisely this kind of “merit” selection. The group cheered the ABA proposal this week, and pledged its support. “Judges are not politicians in robes, nor are they prizes to be won by aggressive special interests,” executive director Bert Brandenburg remarked. Unless, of course, the “special interest” is the lawyers’ guild. Then it’s all just one happy meritocracy.

Click here to read the rest of the story …

The voters anger and disgust with incumbent elected officials and judges was on full display yesterday in Nevada. Yesterday’s Statewide Primary Election ended with three prominent GOP State Legislators and amazing two sitting judges being voted out of office. These two sitting Judges failed to win their primary elections which means they will not advance to the fall general election.

This is further proof that the voting public is angry and is looking to throw incumbents out of office for their transgressions.

Following is a story from the August 13, 2008 edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal that recaps yesterday’s Nevada Primary Election.

Aug. 13, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

PRIMARY ELECTION: In low turnout, voters pummel incumbents

Three lawmakers, two judges ousted

By MOLLY BALL
REVIEW-JOURNAL

It was a brutal night for incumbents Tuesday, as Nevada’s primary election swept several legislators and judges clean out of office.

Three Republican lawmakers and two embattled Clark County judges lost their positions in the low-turnout contest as those voters who showed up — the fewest of any election in at least 12 years — appeared to prefer new blood.

Yet the biggest incumbent of all, state Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio of Reno, remained standing, pulling out a close Republican primary race against Sharron Angle, a former assemblywoman who mounted a challenge from the right.

Raggio held off Angle by just 548 votes, winning 53 percent of the primary vote to Angle’s 47 percent.

Not as fortunate were Assemblywoman Francis Allen of Las Vegas and Assemblyman Bob Beers of Henderson, both of whom lost Republican primaries after falling out of favor with their party’s base.

A third Assembly member, John Marvel of Battle Mountain, also lost a Republican primary, beaten by a former lawmaker, Don Gustavson, 34 percent to 29 percent.

Two judges who face accusations of misconduct also reaped voters’ wrath. District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson and Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio both came in third in their primaries, meaning they won’t go on to the November runoffs between the top two candidates.

The only statewide contest on the ballot, the race for an open seat on the state Supreme Court, came down to the wire Tuesday night, with Kris Pickering and Deborah Schumacher emerging as the top two vote-getters who will go on to compete in November.

Click Here to read the full story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

If you would like to read more about Nevada Supreme Court Candidates please click on their name to visit their information page on Judgepedia.

Deborah Schumacher

Kris Pickering

Today is the Primary Election Day in Nevada and on the ballot are many competitive and hotly contested judicial races.  If you have been following these races as closely as I have I am sure you will be staying up late this evening to watch the results come in.

Nevada’s Secretary of State, Ross Miller, announced that you can watch the results come in on his election website.  You can visit the website by clicking here or by typing www.silverstate08.com into your browser.

If you miss the results please check in here tomorrow as I will post all of the returns in the judicial races.

Have a great day and remember to vote!

Cross-posted from SunshineReviewBlog.com

A Tulsa World study has shown that over 2300 court cases in Oklahoma have files sealed by district court judges since 2003.

Joey Senat, past president of Freedom of Information Oklahoma, said he was surprised by the amount of sealed records.

“I had heard of this going on in other states, but I’m really disappointed this is happening to the courts in our state,” Senat said. “This is a real indication there are two systems — one for the rich
and powerful and one for the rest of us. The public has been left out of this process.

“One thing we need to remember is that the judges who are signing those orders are elected and the court clerks are elected. If we want our records to stay open and stay available, we need to be aware of who we are electing as court clerks and judges. Open government needs to be the issue.”

Agreed. A transparent government (including courts) allow citizens to feel they are receiving fair treatment and exposes errors and conflicts of interest to public and legal review.

One advocate suggests the way to keep yourself out of an open record is simply to keep your life out of the courts.

Mark Thomas, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Press Association, said society should be moving toward openness.

“It gives the appearance that justice is for sale in Oklahoma, like it was 50 years ago,” Thomas said. “We should avoid that appearance at all cost.

“On occasion, there is a valid reason to seal a court record, but it should be an extreme rarity. If the public pays for our court system, then we ought to know who it’s being used for. If you want privacy, settle your affairs in private.”

Public servants, such as judges, should balance the need for sealed court cases against the public interest. When there is no real public safety or juvenile privacy concerns, the records should be as open as possible.

I have run across a couple of judicial candidates in Texas using the Internet and YouTube to aid their campaigns this year. I think this is a great thing as it allows the candidate to by-pass the main stream paid media and present their message directly to the voter.

With more and more people turning to the internet as their main source for news and entertainment, I think we will see more and more candidates use YouTube and other web based tools to communicate directly with the voter.

Here are just a few examples of what I found in Texas. this is by no means all of the videos that are available on the Internet. if you run across one please post the link on the comment section.

Judicial Candidate Mike Engelhart in Harris County Texas.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Dale Wainright (For more information about Justice Wainright please visit his page on Judgepedia by clicking here.